Concerned Tow Operators of Kansas City, Missouri et al v. City of Kansas City Missouri et al

Filing 38

ORDER entered by Judge Ortrie D. Smith granting 37 motion to strike. (Kanies, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
CONCERNED TOW OPERATORS
OF KANSAS CITY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-1328-CV-W-ODS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TEGSCO, LLC’S MOTION TO STRIKE
Pending is Defendant Tegsco, LLC’s (hereinafter “AutoReturn”) Motion to Strike
(Doc. # 37), which asks the Court to strike the second paragraph of part III on page 9 of
Plaintiff’s Reply to its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff did not respond and the
time for doing so has passed. The Motion is granted.
The Court may strike from a pleading any “immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The Court had broad discretion in considering the motion.
Stanbury Law Firm v. Internal Revenue Service, 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000).
“[A]llegations may be stricken if they have no real bearing on the case.” Kay v. Sunbeam
Prods., Inc., No. 2:09-CV-4065-NKL, 2009 WL 1664624, at *1 (W.D. Mo. June 15,
2009).
In this case, Plaintiffs allege the following in their Reply Suggestions to their
Motion for Preliminary Injunction:
Although the issuance of an injunction will no doubt alter the financial position of
the defendant AutoReturn, that defendant has not filed any objection to the
plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, any objection of
AutoReturn is waived and the Court should not weigh any potential harm to
AutoReturn in its consideration of the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction
Reply Suggestions (Doc. # 36), p. 9. AutoReturn properly points out that Plaintiff’s
Motion for a preliminary injunction only seeks to prevent Defendant City of Kansas City,

Missouri, from enforcing the ordinance at issue. AutoReturn has stated its position in its
Answer that it is opposed to Plaintiffs’ prayer for preliminary injunction and Plaintiffs
have no basis for asserting that AutoReturn has waived its opposition. AutoReturn also
argues, and the Court agrees, that AutoReturn’s decision not to file an opposition brief is
a matter of its own prerogative and had no bearing on the merits of Plaintiffs’ request for
a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court grants AutoReturn’s Motion to Strike the
second paragraph of part III on page 9 of Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: May 29, 2013

2